Ayodhya debate

From Dharmapedia Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The Ayodhya debate is a political, historical and socio-religious debate that was prevalent especially in the 1990s in South Asia.Hindu partisan historians say that in the year 1527 the Muslim invader Babur came down from Ferghana in Central Asia and attacked the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri and with the help of cannons and artillery (used in India for the first time) overcame Rana Sangrama Singh and his allies. After this victory, Babar decided to spread terror among the subjugated Hindu population. His general, Mir Baqi was incharge of the region. Mir Baqi came to Ayodhya in 1528 and gave special attention to the main and biggest temple in the town. This was the temple which was built on the place where Samrat Shri Ramachandra, an ancient King of India was born. Samrat Shri Ramachandra was (and still is) revered by the devout among the Hindus as a god, also referred to as Rama, believed by Hindus to be an avatar of Vishnu. Babar, whose general Mir Baqi allegedly destroyed this temple at Ayodhya, built by the Hindus to commemorate their king Samrat Ramchandra. Mir Baqi built a mosque at the site of the destroyed temple. This was called the Babri Masjid (Mosque), named after King Babar.

The Babri Mosque was a mosque constructed by order of the first Mughal emperor of India, Babur, in Ayodhya in the 16th century. Before the 1940s, the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan ("mosque of the birthplace").[1] The mosque stood on the Ramkot ("Rama's fort") hill (also called Janamsthan ("birthplace"). Accoring to Hindus, it was built on the birthplace of the deity Rama after the Mughal rulers demolished the Ram Mandir ("Temple of Rama") on its location as they had done to many other temples around India.[2] It was destroyed by Hindu activists in a riot on December 6, 1992.

Before the demolition[edit]

It was until about 1990 the standard view that an ancient Ram Janmabhoomi temple was demolished and replaced with the Babri Mosque. References such as the 1986 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica reported that "Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple".[3] According to the Hindu view, the ancient temple could have been destroyed on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur. This view is challenged by many Muslims and 'Marxist'[4].

Historical background[edit]

Gupta period[edit]

In Buddha's time (600 B.C.) the present day Ayodhya was called Saketa and it was one of the 6 largest cities of North India. During the Gupta times, either Kumaragupta or Skandagupta made it their capital, after which it came to be called Ayodhya. Kalidasa wrote Raghuvamsa here, and referred to Gopratara tirtha (Guptar Ghat), where Rama was believed to have entered the waters of Saryu in his ascent to heaven. According to a local tradition recorded by Francis Buchanan and Alexander Cunningham, Ayodhya became desolate after Rama's ascent to heaven and "Vikramaditya" revived it. (In Raghuvamsa, Rama's son Kusa revived it.) Prabhavatigupta, the daughter of Chandragupta II, was a Rama devotee. Her son, Pravarasena II wrote Sethubandha, in which Rama was regarded as identical to Vishnu. He also built a temple to Rama at Pravarapura (Paunar near Ramtek) in about 450 A.D.[5]

Gahadavala period[edit]

After the Guptas, the capital of North India moved to Kannauj and Ayodhya fell into relative neglect. It was revived by the Gahadavalas, coming to power in the 11th century A.D. The Gahadavalas were Vaishnavas. They built several Vishnu temples in Ayodhya, five of which survived till the end of Aurangzeb's reign. Hans T. Bakker concludes that there might have been a temple at the supposed birth spot of Rama built by the Gahadavalas. In subsequent years, the cult of Rama developed within Vaishnavism, with Rama being regarded as the foremost avatar of Vishnu. Consequently, Ayodhya's importance as a pilgrimage centre grew. In particular, multiple versions of Ayodhya Mahatmya (magical powers of Ayodhya) prescibed the celebration of Ram Navami (the birthday of Rama).[6][7]

Mughal period[edit]

In modern times, we find a mosque at the supposed birth spot of Rama, which is on a large mound in the centre of Ayodhya, called the Ramadurg or Ramkot (the fort of Rama). The mosque bore an inscription stating that it was built in 1528 A.D. by Mir Baqi on the orders of Babur. How this mosque came into being is discussed in these sources:

  • Karim, Maulvi Abdul (1885). Tarikh-i Parnia Madinatul Awliya [Forgotten Events of Ayodhya] (in Persian). Lucknow. 
  • Ghaffar, Maulvi Abdul (1981) [first published prior to 1932]. Gumgamashtah Halat-i Ajodhya [Forgotten Events of Ayodhya] (in Urdu). Lucknow: Nami Press. 
  • Sita Ram, Avadh-vasi Lala (1932). Ayodhya ka Itihasa [History of Ayodhya] (in Hindi). Allahabad. 

According to them, the young Babur came from Kabul to Awadh (Ayodhya) in disguise, dressed as a Qalandar (sufi ascetic), probably as part of a fact-finding mission. Here he met the sufi saints Shah Jalal and Sayyid Musa Ashiqan and took a pledge in return for their blessings for conquering Hindustan. The pledge is not spelled out in the 1981 edition of Ghaffar's book, but it is made clear that it is in pursuance of this pledge that he got the Babri mosque constructed aftering conquering Hindustan.[8] The original book was written in Persian by Maulvi Abdul Karim, a spiritual descendant of Ashiqan, and it was translated into Urdu by his grandson Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar with additional commentary. The older editions of Ghaffar's book contain more detail which seems to have been excised in the 1981 edition. Lala Sita Ram, who had access to the older edition in 1932 wrote, "The faqirs answered that they would bless him if he promised to build a mosque after demolishing the Janmasthan temple. Babur accepted the faqirs' offer and returned to his homeland."[9][10]

The fact that Babur came in the guise of a Qalandar is corroborated in Abdullah's Tarikh-i Dawudi, where it is detailed that he met the Sultan Sikandar Lodhi in Delhi in the same disguise.[11] The inscription on the Babri mosque itself names him as Babur Qalandar.[12] Musa Ashiqan's grave is situated close to the Babri mosque site, whose shrine uses two of the black basalt columns with Hindu carvings used in the Babri mosque, indicative of his role in the destruction of the prior temple.[citation needed]

While we have had a mosque bearing an inscription to the effect that it was built on orders of Babur in 1528, there are no other records of the mosque from this period. The Babarnama (Chronicles of Babur) does not mention either the mosque or the destruction of a temple.[citation needed] Tulsidas, who began writing the Ramcharit Manas in Ayodhya on Rama's birthday in 1574 (coming there from his normal residence in Varanasi) mentioned the "great birthday festival" in Ayodhya but made no mention of a mosque at Rama's birth place.[13] Abul Fazl, who wrote Akbarnama, completing the third volume Ain-i Akbari in 1598, described the birthday festival in Ayodhya, the "residence of Rama" and the "holiest place of antiquity," but made no mention of a mosque.[14][15] William Finch, the English traveller that visited Ayodhya around 1611, and wrote about the "ruins of the Ranichand [Ramachand] castle and houses" where Hindus believed the great God "took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world." He found pandas (Brahmin priests) in the ruins of the fort, who were recording the names of the pilgrims, a practice that was said to go back to antiquity.[16]

Late Mughal period[edit]

The first known report of a mosque appears in a book Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, said to have been written by a daughter of the emperor Bahadur Shah I (and granddaughter of Aurangzeb) in the early 18th century. It mentioned mosques having been constructed after demolishing the "temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh etc." Hindus are said to have called these demolished temples in Awadh "Sita Rasoi" (Sita's kitchen) and "Hanuman's abode." [17][18] It should be borne in mind that the mosques at Mathura and Banaras were built by Aurangzeb, not Babur.

Jai Singh II (popularly called "Sawai Jai Singh", 1688-1743) purchased land and established Jaisinghpuras in all Hindu religious centres in North India, including Mathura, Vrindavan, Banaras, Allahabad, Ujjain and Ayodhya. The documents of these activities have been preserved in the Kapad-Dwar collection in the City Palace Museum in Jaipur. Professor R. Nath, who has examined these records, concludes that Jai Singh had acquired the land of Rama Janmasthan in 1717. The ownership of the land was vested in the deity. The hereditary title of the ownership was recognized and enforced by the Mugal State from 1717. He also found a letter from a gumastha Trilokchand, dated 1723, stating that, while under the Muslim administration people had been prevented from taking a ritual bath in the Saryu river, the establishment of the Jaisinghpura has removed all impediments.[19]

The Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, who visited Awadh in 1766-1771, wrote, "Emperor Aurangzebe got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that it was constructed by 'Babor'. Fourteen black stone pillars of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque."[20] This ambiguity between Aurangzeb and Babur could be significant.[21] Tieffenthaler also wrote that Hindus worshipped a square box raised 5 inches above the ground, which was said to be called the "Bedi, i.e., the cradle." "The reason for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where Beschan [Vishnu] was born in the form of Ram." Rama's birthday was said to be celebrated every year, with a big gathering of people, which was "so famous in the entire India."[22][23]

Summary[edit]

It can be seen from the historical outline that Ayodhya became a pilgrimage centre devoted to Rama in the 16th century, if not earlier. The site of the Babri Masjid continued to be called "Rama's fort," and was said to be in ruins for at least some of the time. It nevertheless continued to attract Hindu pilgrims. In the 18th century, a belief took shape that this site contained Rama's birth spot as well as Sita's kitchen.


Politics[edit]

Many Indian observers see the controversy surrounding this mosque within the framework of Hindu fundamentalism and Hindu Revivalism. It was commonly believed by Hindus until about 1990 that the mosque stood on an ancient Hindu temple, though some commentators disagree and say that although the judiciary has been debating on the dispute of Babri Masjid (mosque) in Ayodhya for more than 40 years, it had remained a nonissue until the mid-1980s [1]. The Encyclopædia Britannica of 1989 reported that the Babri Mosque stood "on a site traditionally identified" as an earlier temple dedicated to Rama's birthplace. [24] According to their view, the ancient temple could have been destroyed on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur. This view is challenged by the Muslims, Indian secular, Marxist [25] and mainstream Indian historians since the early 1990s.

The excavation began on March 12, 2003 on the acquired land on the high court's order and by August 7, 2003 when it ended, the ASI team had made 1360 discoveries. A bench, comprising Justice S R Alam, Justice Bhanwar Singh and Justice Khemkaran, had asked the ASI to submit the report and as per the order, the Archaeological Survey of India submitted its final report in the Allahabad high court[26]. The 574-page ASI report consisting of written opinions, maps and drawings was opened before the full Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court. The report said there was archaeological evidence of "a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10th century onwards". The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50x30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found. The area below the disputed site remained a place for public use for a long time till the Mughal period when the disputed structure was built which was confined to a limited area and the population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including pottery. The report said the human activity at the site dates back to 13th century BC on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site[27]. A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this level, according to the report. The report said the Sunga period (second-first century BC) comes next in order of the cultural occupation at the site followed by the Kushan period. During the early medieval period (11-12th century AD) a huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived as only four of the 50 pillar bases exposed during the excavation belonged to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The architectural members of the earlier short-lived massive structure with stencil-cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure which has a huge pillared hall different from residential structures providing sufficient evidence of construction of public usages which remained under existence for a long time during the period. The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century that the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.[27]

Hindu view[edit]

Historians say that in the year 1527 the Muslim invader Babur came down from Ferghana in Central Asia and attacked the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri and with the help of cannons and artillery (used in India for the first time) overcame Rana Sangrama Singh and his allies.

After this victory, Babar decided to spread terror among the subjugated Hindu population. His general, Mir Baqi was incharge of the region. Mir Baqi came to Ayodhya in 1528 and gave special attention to the main and biggest temple in the town. This was the temple which was built on the place where Samrat Shri Ramachandra, an ancient King of India was born. Samrat Shri Ramachandra was (and still is) revered by the devout among the Hindus as a god, also referred to as Rama, believed by Hindus to be an avatar of Vishnu.

Babar, whose general Mir Baqi allegedly destroyed this temple at Ayodhya, built by the Hindus to commemorate their king Samrat Ramchandra. Mir Baqi built a mosque at the site of the destroyed temple. This was called the Babri Masjid (Mosque), named after King Babar.

The claim of the destruction of this temple and the erection of a mosque in its place is also mentioned in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The advocates say that many Indians - and even many of the educated Indians - are unaware of this truth. Indian History books at School and College do not tell the story in its true detail. Hindu advocates allege that the Government of India has 'shamelessly' pandered to the muslims in this and other issues in order to secure the minority electoral bloc as part of their partisan vote bank politics, the VHP especially voicing this concern.

Advocates also allege that the excessive sypmathy for muslims in this issue is due to a zeitgeist of Pseudo-secularism in Indian society brought about by communist thinking, where struggles between Hindus and Muslims are viewed as a "class struggle" rather than a communal one. This identification of muslims as an "opressed underclass" are viewed as fallacious, since many Indian muslims are quite wealthy and well-represented in many walks of life.

They claim that the Muslims claims to the region are unfounded, in violation of common law and based on the beliefs and practices of Islamic Fundamentalism. They allege that this is part of a malicious agenda of hate against Hindus and is an attempt to delegitimize the Hindu ethos in India.

Until 1989 when the BJP made into a political issue there had been no question about the site’s history [2]. All the written sources, whether Hindu, Muslim or European, were in agreement about the pre-existence of a Rama temple at the site. “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple”, according to the 1989 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry “Ayodhya”. However, this text was changed in subsequent editions. Neither was there any document contradicting this scenario: no account of a forest chopped down to make way for the mosque (already unlikely in the centre of an ancient town), no sales contract of real estate to the mosque’s builder, nothing of the kind. By contrast, there were testimonies of Hindus bewailing and Muslims boasting of the replacement of the temple with a mosque; and of Hindus under Muslim rule coming as close as possible to the site in order to celebrate Rama’s birthday every year in April, in continuation of the practice at the time when the temple stood.

In case authors of testimonies may be unreliable, there was also the archaeological evidence: in the 1970s, a team of the Archaeological Survey of India led by Prof. B.B. Lal dug out some trenches just outside the mosque and found rows of pillar-bases which must have supported a larger building predating the mosque. Moreover, in the mosque itself, small black pillars with Hindu sculptures had been incorporated, a traditional practice in mosques built in forcible replacement of infidel temples to flaunt the victory of Islam over Paganism.

The only remaining question about the site was its status in the period 1192-1528. In 1192 and the subsequent years, practically all the Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries in North India were demolished by Mohammed Ghori and his Turkish invaders. It is impossible that the medieval temple at the site could have survived until 1528. The most likely scenario is the one well-attested at another famous temple site: the Somnath temple in Gujarat. No less than nine times did Hindus reclaim it as a temple, until Muslims retook it and turned it into a mosque again. Since Ayodhya was a provincial capital of the Delhi Sultanate, opportunities for wresting the site from Muslim control were certainly more limited than in the case of the outlying Somnath temple. Then again, the frequent infighting among the Muslim elite may have given rebellious Hindus some opportunities too. From peculiarities in the architecture of the Babri Masjid, art historians on both sides of the debate (Sushil Srivastava, R. Nath) have deduced that the main part of the structure had been built well before the Moghul invasion, probably in the 14th century. In that case, the tradition that it was built by Mir Baqi may be based on the following scenario: towards the end of the Sultanate period, Hindus may have managed to recapture the site and to turn it into a functioning temple, until Babar and his lieutenant Mir Baqi firmly imposed Muslim control again and gave some finishing touches to the mosque architecture in replacement of any Hindu elements that had come to adorn it. But this must for now be kept inside speculative brackets. What is certain is that a major Hindu temple at the site was demolished by Islamic iconoclasm and replaced with a mosque symbolizing the victory of Islam over Infidelism. Of that, evidence is plentiful and of many types.

The Hindu Nationalist movement has been pressing for reclaiming these Muslim buildings and calls this period a period of Hindu slavery and foreign rule. This is often unpalatable to the minority Muslim community and secularists who consider this period as culturally Indian noting that these rulers made India their own home and enriched India's varied traditions.

The Hindu nationalists and some western scholars believe that more than 3000 places of Muslim worship have been built over Hindu & Jain temples[citation needed] and in the immediate VHP, RSS, Bajrang Dal are asking for three of them, Ram Janmbhumi -Ayodhya, Kashi Vishwanath- Varanasi and Krishna Janmbhumi - Mathura .[28] Forced by this situation and in the eyes of this movement, engaged in the so called politics of Minority Appeasement, Congress government under P.V.Narsinharao enacted a law to maintain status quo of all the religious places as on 1947 except Ramjanmbhumi- Babri Masjid which is sub judice.

The legal case continues on the title deed of the land tract which is for the major part a Muslim trust (Wakf Board) or government controlled property; while the Muslim parties have not agreed to hand over the land (not unlike the Masjid Shaheedganj case in Lahore) even if it is proven a temple existed and demanding it be proven that it is indeed Ramjanmbhumi (i.e. Ram was born on this site), the Hindu side wants a law in parliament to have it constructed saying faith in the existence of Ram Janmabhoomi can not be decided in a court of law.

Muslim views[edit]

Muslim claims over the site are largely represented by the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee, demanding the restoration of the site and the mosque. It also holds that the case should be decided by the courts and if it is proved that a Hindu Temple existed at the spot the same will be handed over to the Hindu party; while the Hindu parties have been asking the minority Muslims to show magnanimity by handing over the land for the construction of the temple.Some Muslim members of the Hindu nationalist party BJP do not share the views of the Babri Masjid Action Committee like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, president of the so called Muslim Youth Conference, an organisation known for its cooperation with the Hindu parties but equally unpopular with the Muslims who believe he is not Muslim, he said: "It is the duty of every nationalist Indian to protect the birthplace of Lord Rama to save India's honour, prestige and cultural heritage.... Anti-national and communal activities of Muslim fundamentalists are a blot on the entire community... It is the duty of all nationalist Muslims to expose such designs and accept the truth.” (Indian Express, 21/9/1990.)

Hindu parties have also cited that a Muslim scholar Asghar Ali Engineer wrote: "The Muslims, in my opinion, should show magnanimity and [make] a noble gesture of gifting away the mosque... (“Communalism and Communal Violence in India (Ajanta Publ., Delhi 1989), p.320.)However, a majority of Muslims question this idea saying as minority community and thereby deprived - they should themselves be shown magnanimity.

One option discussed was also to build the temple next to the mosque or to relocate the mosque to another site (many mosques in Islamic countries have been relocated for reasons such as road expansion).However, Indian Muslim parties claim that the place of prayer is what is constituted by the mosque and not the structure.

Muslims have claimed that this issue is just the crest of an iceberg. The Hindu parties whether shunning violence or doing it are just waiting for another moment to repatriate other Muslim places of worship. They cite many places where actions by the right wing Hindu party BJP and its affiliate religious organisations have either led to the closure of these places of worship to the Muslims or partial curtailment of the prayers to a few days in a week or limiting the number of people who could perform the prayers.

Secularist view[edit]

A large number of prominent people, many of them sympathisers of the Communist/Congress party oppose the destruction of the Babri Mosque e.g. Anand Patwardhan, Gyanendra Pandey, Pujari Laldas etc. But it is claimed by some other Hindus associated with the BJP led movement that at the time the structure was felled, it did touch a chord with millions of Hindus who looked to this incident as a fountainhead of Hindu religious nationalism in India. Muslims on the other hand regarded this as a black day for the Indian nationhood and Indian secularism. While Muslims observe December 6 , when this historic mosque and monument was felled as a Black day, Patriotic Hindus observe this as the Shourya Divas - Victory Day.

The situation regarding the Ram Janmabhoomi has been compared to the Temple Mount controversies and claims in Israel by the Middle East scholar and Islam critic Daniel Pipes [3]. In particular, Pipes writes:

"Ayodhya prompts several thoughts relating to the Temple Mount. It shows that the Temple Mount dispute is far from unique. Moslems have habitually asserted the supremacy of Islam through architecture, building on top of the monuments of other faiths (as in Jerusalem and Ayodhya) or appropriating them (e.g. the Ka'ba in Mecca and the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople)."

Nobel Laureate V. S. Naipaul praised Hindu Nationalists for "reclaiming India's Hindu heritage"[29] and the repatriation of the Ramjanmabhoomi was a "welcome sign that Hindu pride was re-asserting itself"[30]

Political fallout[edit]

The descriptions of temple destructions in Muslim chronicles have been the matter of some controversy.

Moreover, the Shah Bano controversy that turned down the divorce provisions of Muslim personal laws in India and the aftermath in which the Indian parliament enacted a law to reinstate them contributed to some Hindus claiming that Muslims were enjoying a favoured status. Some observers see this as the major factor for the flare of this movement at the same time the Muslims regarded this as an attempt to curtail their religious freedom.

Many terror attacks by banned jehadi outfits like IM cited demolition of Babri Mosque as an excuse for terrorist attacks[31][32]. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, many Hindu women were raped, hundreds of Hindu homes and temples were destroyed[33][34][35].

2002 Gujarat violence[edit]

Riots in Gujarat in 2002 were caused as a consequence to Godhra Carnage where more than 57 Hindu Kar Sevaks were burnt to death while returning from the Ayodhya site in a train. This was perpetrated allegedly by the Ghanchi Muslims of Gujarat, which has, as of October 2006, been established by the Gujarat High Court. The riots led violence resulting in around 1000 deaths,mostly Muslims. As a consequence, the Gujarat government was severely chastized for ignoring (as well as allegedly endorsing) the riots. On the same year, Muslim terrorists led the Akshardham Temple attack on the Hindu temple in Gujarat. Also. the riots were followed by the rise of Wahhabi Islamic Fundamentalism and terrorism among Gujarati Muslims[4].

References[edit]

  1. Sayyid Shahabuddin Abdur Rahman, Babri Masjid, 3rd print, Azamgarh: Darul Musannifin Shibli Academy, 1987, pp. 29-30.
  2. Legacy of Muslim Rule in India Chapter 8
  3. 15th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1986, entry "Ayodhya", Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.
  4. e.g. Romila Thapar. Tom Bottomore: Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Blackwell, Oxford 1988, entry “Hinduism”.
  5. Jain 2012, pp. 3-5.
  6. Bakker, Hans (1982). "The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage". Indo-Iranian Journal. 24 (2): 103–126. 
  7. Paramasivan, Vasudha (2009). "Yah Ayodhya Vah Ayodhya: Earthly and Cosmic Journeys in the Anand-lahari". In Heidi R. M. Pauwels. Patronage and Popularisation, Pilgrimage and Procession. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. pp. 101–116. ISBN 3447057238. 
  8. Ghaffar 1981, pp. 61-62 quoted in Narain 1993, pp. 31-32
  9. Sita Ram 1932, p. 151 quoted in Narain 1993, p. 33 and Allahabad High Court 2010, vol. 4, p. 281
  10. van der Veer 1989, pp. 20-21.
  11. Narain 1993, pp. 33-34.
  12. Narain 1993, p. 34.
  13. Jain 2012, pp. 165-166.
  14. Narain 1993, p. 17.
  15. Jain 2012, p. 166.
  16. Jain 2012, p. 9, 120, 164.
  17. Narain 1993, pp. 23-25.
  18. Layton & Thomas 2003, p. 8.
  19. Jain 2012, pp. 112-114.
  20. Jain 2012, pp. 120-121.
  21. Some scholars argue that whatever Babur constructed was abandoned and was in ruins by the time of Akbar, and Hindus continued to worship there. The mosque seen in present times must have been constructed by Aurangzeb.
  22. Jain 2012, p. 121.
  23. Layton & Thomas 2003, pp. 8-9.
  24. "Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple", 1989 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry "Ayodhya".{Template:Fact}
  25. e.g. Romila Thapar. Tom Bottomore: Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Blackwell, Oxford 1988, entry “Hinduism”.
  26. http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/22ayo.htm
  27. 27.0 27.1 http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/25ayo1.htm
  28. The Hindu, Praveen Togadia cited atFight secular Hindus, says Singhal February 08, 2003
  29. Naipaul, V.S, Beyond belief:Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples,Vintage Books,1998
  30. Naipaul V.S. India, a million Mutinies now, Penguin 1992
  31. http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?268602
  32. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/blast-a-revenge-for-babri-mail/361167/1
  33. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MARP,,BGD,,469f3869c,0.html
  34. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named guardianarchieve
  35. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MRGI,,BGD,,49749d572d,0.html

see also[edit]

Further reading[edit]

  • Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. 1996. Edited, translated and annotated by Wheeler M. Thacktson. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
  • The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries. 1995. New Delhi:Voice of India.
  • Ayodhya and the Future of India. 1993. Edited by Jitendra Bajaj. Madras: Centre for Policy Studies.
  • Elst, Koenraad. 1991. Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society. 1991. New Delhi: Voice of India. [5]
  • Elst, Koenraad, Ayodhya, The Finale - Science versus Secularism the Excavations Debate (2003) ISBN 81-85990-77-8
  • Elst, Koenraad, Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple (2002) ISBN 81-85990-75-1
  • Emmanuel, Dominic. 'The Mumbai bomb blasts and the Ayodhya tangle', National Catholic Reporter (Kansas City, August 27 2003).
  • Sita Ram Goel: Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them, Voice of India, Delhi 1991. [6] [7]
  • Harsh Narain. 1993. The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers.
  • R. Nath. Babari Masjid of Ayodhya, Jaipur 1991.
  • Rajaram, N.S. (2000). Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New Delhi: Voice of India
  • Thakur Prasad Varma and Swarajya Prakash Gupta: Ayodhya ka Itihas evam Puratattva— Rigveda kal se ab tak (‘History and Archaeology of Ayodhya— From the Time of the Rigveda to the Present’). Bharatiya Itihasa evam Samskrit Parishad and DK Printworld. New Delhi.
  • Thapar, Romila. 'A Historical Perspective on the Story of Rama' in Thapar (2000).
  • Thapar, Romila. Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History (New Delhi: Oxford University, 2000) ISBN 0-19-564050-0.
  • Ayodhya ka Itihas evam Puratattva— Rigveda kal se ab tak (‘History and Archaeology of Ayodhya— From the Time of the Rigveda to the Present’) by Thakur Prasad Varma and Swarajya Prakash Gupta. Bharatiya Itihasa evam Samskrit Parishad and DK Printworld. New Delhi. (An important work on the archaeology of the temple.)
  • History versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir presented by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December-January 1990-91. New Delhi: Voice of India.
  • Lal, B. B. (2003). "A note on the excavations at Ayodhya with reference to the Mandir-Masjid issue". In Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas, J. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 117–126. ISBN 1134604971. 

In fiction[edit]

links[edit]